Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 05-1849
JASON SELIGMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID I. TENZER; GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY &
GOODLATTE, PC; dba GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY &
GOODLATTE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CA-04-44)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from a corporate governance dispute in
which Mason Cass and Bryant Cass, principals of the corporation,
Adventis, Inc. (Adventis), ousted the third principal, Jason
Seligman. Disgruntled with his termination from Adventis, Seligman
first filed suit in Virginia state court against the Casses and
Adventis
and
settled
the
dispute.
Seligman
then
filed
this
Glenn,
Feldmann,
Darby
&
Goodlatte,
P.C.
(GFDG)
We now affirm.
I.
In 1999, the Casses invited Seligman to join their preexisting partnership, which advertised the sale of used cars over
the Internet.
Seligman
contacted
Tenzer
to
discuss
the
Seligman
Tenzer
further
encouraged
the
principals
to
adopt
the Casses orally agreed that two of the principals could terminate
the third, but only for cause.
Immediately after the conversion, the principals suffered a
falling out, and the Casses fired Seligman. Seligman filed suit in
Virginia state court against the Casses and Adventis, asserting
state law claims of oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
and mismanagement of corporate assets.
payment.
January
of
2004,
Seligman
filed
the
instant
legal
that
defendants
failure
to
protect
him
during
the
The
II.
A.
We first review de novo the district courts decision to grant
defendants motion for summary judgment.
Bouchat v. Baltimore
Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 519 (4th Cir. 2003).
According to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any
Celotex
Corp.
v.
Catrett,
477
U.S.
317,
322-23
(1986);
Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.
2002).
To state a cause of action for legal malpractice under
Virginia law, the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of an
attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty; (2) the breach
of that duty by the attorney; and (3) damages proximately caused by
the breach.
S.E.2d
16,
20
(Va.
2006)
(the
plaintiff
suffers
single,
id. at 23
B.
We
next
review
the
district
courts
decision
to
deny
United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 275 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2001);
Seligman
for
summary
judgment,
and
within
three
weeks
of
the
Life Ins. Co., 503 F.2d 333, 335 (4th Cir. 1974) (no abuse of
discretion in denying motion for voluntary dismissal in light of
the advanced stage of litigation).
III.
The district courts dispositions of the motion for summary
judgment and the motion for a voluntary dismissal or continuance
are therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED